NEMG vs. BULZ
NEMG (Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds. NEMG is actively managed, while BULZ is passively managed. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NEMG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.
Performance
NEMG vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NEMG achieves a -20.44% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.
NEMG
- 1D
- -7.98%
- 1M
- -20.02%
- YTD
- -20.44%
- 6M
- -28.94%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BULZ
- 1D
- -11.88%
- 1M
- -15.57%
- YTD
- 42.05%
- 6M
- 35.20%
- 1Y
- 135.83%
- 3Y*
- 74.62%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NEMG vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NEMG Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF | -20.44% | 22.87% |
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs | 42.05% | 0.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between NEMG and BULZ is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2025 | 0.41 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NEMG vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank
NEMG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BULZ
NEMG vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF (NEMG) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| NEMG | BULZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.28 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.52 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.50 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NEMG vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NEMG drawdown since its inception was -57.56%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMG and BULZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NEMG | BULZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -57.56% | -94.44% | +36.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -54.22% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -67.96% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -53.44% | -33.07% | -20.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.21% | -58.02% | +34.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 20.98% | — |
Volatility
NEMG vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NEMG | BULZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 35.31% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 63.55% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 102.63% | 80.03% | +22.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 102.63% | 91.84% | +10.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 102.63% | 91.84% | +10.79% |
NEMG vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
NEMG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
NEMG vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison
Neither NEMG nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
NEMG and BULZ have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NEMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NEMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.
NEMG and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for NEMG and 0.95% for BULZ.
Find the right allocation for NEMG and BULZ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer